Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 3 – Video 4

Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 3 – Video 4

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


matters I call one Michael would ship it’s a pleasure to stand up to speak to statutes repeal bill and as I read through my papers in preparation for this debate I was reminded of the great year of 1999 as Frank Sinatra saying it was a very good year for some very good reasons but the reason I was reminded of it was because it was my second year at Law School in the year that I took public law and probably as a number of other members of this house might know about the first case that you learn when you study public law is Fitzgerald versus Muldoon because it goes very right to the heart of what our public law is about at such an important in seminal case and of course that case is raised in the submission of Kenneth Keith one of our most eminent jurists which has been referred to by number other speakers albeit not peps at the correct point of the debate what I just wanted to develop off the points made in mr. Keith submission is that this is actually very very fundamental this actually goes right back the 1688 Bill of Rights it’s talking about it about a bit about a statute passed by this house we’re talking about something that comes down to us from the mother of Parliament’s from that period in the 17th century when out the the modern parliamentary system that all current Westminster Parliament have evolved from was being developed that bill of rights acts is this in section one that the pretended power of suspending laws or the execution of laws by regal Authority without consent of parliament is illegal the reason I think it’s useful to quote that sir is that often we think of executive abuse of power or executive overreach as being doing something positive something affirmative going to look our war without parliamentary authorization extracting text from the public with a parliamentary authorization those kind of things but what the Bill of Rights makes very clear is it actually Parliament at the executive not doing things that it should is also not correct and that’s a point that Kenneth Keith makes it’s a point that Fitzgerald versus Muldoon makes because in the case of Fitzgerald versus Muldoon it was the prime minister of the day Robert Muldoon not doing something which had been which had been put in place by this house that’s exactly the case here that’s what mr. Keith says because the sentencing council Act was passed was passed by this house in 2007 went through full parliamentary scrutiny members of the public made submissions speeches were made in this house went through three readings that was put on to the statute books and there it has set for nine years but it has not been enacted and we can say well okay okay it’s not something which has done terrible damage to to someone but the point is that that bill was enacted with a purpose and as my colleague David Parker started commenting on before and as David cleaned and spoke about before that purpose was quite significant it was about establishing the principle that we should have a quality of sentencing across all people in our community in our criminal justice system now people may agree or disagree with that and obviously the incoming government in 2000 they disagreed with that fear cop that’s why we have debates that’s why we have we put legislation to this Parliament and we hear both sides of it but that legislation is said on the books for nine years and it hasn’t been implemented and what mr. Keith is very clear about this he says that refusal to give a thick to a statute and force this is a paragraph ten of his submission to the committee appears to me to be a serious constitutional matter and it just seems to me sue that the government is sweeping that under the rug and I actually like the Minister and the chair to answer some questions about this is the government actually going to take at this point that has been raised by tsukina the Keith okay we’re not just talking about you your garden submission we’re talking about something from Sir Kenneth Keith a question that springs to mind for me is actually is there some legal risk in this Sakina the–this said that this is a piece of legislation that should have been enacted well if I’m someone who’s been convicted and sentenced during that period and the government hasn’t enacted something on the book that it should have have I got some case to come back to there I don’t know the answer to that but I think given the points raised by sue king of Keith in a submission we should hear from the government about their so I support the supplementary order paper that will no doubt hear more about from David Parker to remove the repeal of the of the Sentencing Act from the sect and I urge all members of this house who care about do parliamentary process to give serious consideration to that when we move on to the debate later on thank you sir Chris Atkins thank you very much mr. chairman I would like to thank the member

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *